Flowers in the Attic

Synopsis

After the death of her husband, a mother takes her kids off to live with their grandparents in a huge, decrepit old mansion. However, the kids are kept hidden in a room just below the attic, visited only by the grandmother, and their mother, who becomes less and less concerned about them and their failing health, and more concerned about herself and the inheritance she plans to win back from her dying father, to the point of murder...

After the death of her husband, a mother takes her kids off to live with their grandparents in a huge, decrepit old mansion. However, the kids are kept hidden in a room just below the attic, visited only by the grandmother, and their mother, who becomes less and less concerned about them and their failing health, and more concerned about herself and the inheritance she plans to win back from her dying father, to the point of murder...

Tech specs

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by shanfloyd 4 / 10

So many ways to destroy a classic novel.

Every great story has its own essence. And when it is stripped off
that, it becomes a story that easily you and me or any John Doe could
write. "Flowers in the Attic", written by Virginia Andrews, is a
gripping tale of broken trust, betrayal, and complex human
relationships that seem so natural under the circumstances, however
forbidden they were to be. It's such a pity that such a novel should
fall in wrong hands for its screen adaptation. The movie horribly lacks
the original soul of the story, its sinister twists, its surprises, its
adventures in sociology.

The story is like this: after their father dies accidentally, Corrine,
the mother, takes pre-pubertal Chris, Cathy and little twins Cory and
Carrie to her own wealthy parents hoping she would inherit from his
dying father. But there's a catch; her marriage had been earlier
disapproved by the old man and he won't let her a penny if he finds out
she has children. So she and the equally cruel grandmother lock the
kids up in the attic... until the fine moment comes when she'd win the
old man's heart back and tell her everything. But that day never comes
while Corrine herself marries another man and eventually inherits the
money... without telling her father about the children. In the
meantime, Chris and Cathy grow up through teens and discover each other
quite fruitfully, and eventually all four of them become a family,
sharing a special bond made out of the feeling of being betrayed, and
the longing to escape, which occurs not before three years.

The movie changed a lot of it. Some I didn't mind, but some are really
outrageous. The account of mental and physical growth of the children
during the course of time is largely left out. The movie shows Chris
and Cathy in late teens right from the start, which ruined the basic
message behind their relationship. In the book the twins played an
enormous role in building up that relationship between their older
siblings. The movie did not treat them as characters, to put it flatly.
And how the movie ends, it may look dramatic in a rather happy-ending
manner, but comparing to the book, it is overtly exaggerated, giving
the whole thing a cheap smell. The book's climax is not dramatic, yet
far more thrilling than this crap about the kids meeting their new
stepfather. And finally this sick hush-hush about the incest! Somebody
who liked the movie considered the brilliant plot of the novel just an
excuse to write about incest, and told me it's good how the movie
avoided the details. Nonsense! incest in this story comes as the most
natural thing on earth. And how wonderfully indifferent Andrews is when
she writes about it, the storyteller being Cathy. The movie blandly
leaves a large part of it out, making the whole movie seem, well,
infertile.

For the casting, only Louis Fletcher made a great grandmother. She is
right there in her Oscar-winning standard. But besides her, it's all a
bad casting throughout. Kristy Swanson as Cathy is just disgusting. How
can she act so blunt when she's the central character? Jeb Adams as
Chris may not look like he's described, but he acts not that bad. And
Victoria Tennant as Corrine too, receives little screen time to be
judged well.

I wish there hadn't been a movie. You cannot make an art movie through
three years, and you can't easily show a 13-year-old girl naked
performing incest, both of which are absolutely necessary to make a
good screen adaptation out of the story. But I don't want this crap to
be remembered as the only movie out of Andrews' novel. I now want a
remake, however controversial it may be, whatever ratings it may get.

Reviewed by ultra_violent 6 / 10

I Thought It Was Decent, Then Again I Haven't Read The Book...

"Flowers In The Attic", based on the controversial Gothic novel from
V.C. Andrews, centers around a widowed mother (Victoria Tennant) who
decides to whisk her four children off to live with their grandparents
in their isolated mansion. The children consist of Chris, Cathy, and
the two younger children, Cory and Carrie. Little do the children know,
their mother has essentially given them over to their abusive,
religiously-fanatical grandmother (played by Oscar winner Louise
Fletcher), and they are locked away in the attic and kept there, while
their health deteriorates and they are abused constantly. All the
while, their evil mother conspires to receive the inheritance from her
own dying father, and plans on starting a completely new life with
another man - even if it means murder.

A decent but semi-disturbing film, "Flowers In The Attic" is a strange
movie. Keep in mind I haven't read the novel that the film was based
upon, so I have no reference between the two (although I've heard
numerous times that the film did the book not an ounce of justice). So,
without comparing the film and the novel, I thought this movie was
pretty effective. The storyline is nicely written here, it's an obscure
plot for sure. The script was decent as well, and again I'm not sure
how it correlates with the original book. Atmosphere and claustrophobia
is consistent in the film as well, it isn't your typical bloody horror
flick. Everything has a very Gothic, depressing tone, and the mood here
fits everything very well. It's an eerie film, mainly because of the
disturbing subject matter and the gloomy atmosphere that is present
throughout. The film deals with some heavy issues as well (including
incest, among other things), so you may want to be aware of that.

As far as the acting goes here, I thought it was very good. Louise
Fletcher (who garnered an Oscar for her stunning performance in the
film classic "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest") is terrifying in her
performance as the abusive, psychotic grandmother of the children. As
if her character isn't scary enough, Fletcher is a very tall woman as
well, and her stature and attitude adds to the menacing nature of her
character. I thought she carried the film in way of the performances
and more notable than the others, but everyone else was good here too.
A young Kristy Swanson plays the eldest daughter Cathy, and Victoria
Tennant plays the manipulative and evil mother of the four kids. The
ending of the film consisted of some good old bittersweet revenge, it's
definitely one of those endings that you're likely to remember.

Overall, "Flowers In The Attic" is a good movie. I haven't read the
novel, so I don't personally know how it compares to the book. Based on
other reviews here, the book apparently blows the film away, but since
I've yet to read it, I'm just judging my review on the film alone. It's
a decent psychological Gothic horror story about abuse, abandonment,
human relationships, and revenge. Personally I thought it was an
alright film, and worth watching if it sounds like your cup of tea
(although, judging from what I've heard, if you've read the novel, you
may be disappointed with it). 6/10.

Reviewed by joposa 7 / 10

Don't judge it by the book

An earlier review here, one of the few positive reviews of this movie on this site, had one thing wrong, saying that those who read the book would appreciate the movie, and vice-versa. In fact, the opposite seems to be true. Having not read the book, I first saw this movie unjaded, and so was able to appreciate it as the sad and tragic story that it is.

The sudden death of a loving husband and father (it appears he may be a little too loving toward the oldest daughter, but the movie doesn't expand on that) leaves the family in despair, so the mother takes the children and herself to her filthy-rich parents' mansion, hoping to inherit the estate from her dying father. Just one little thing: she was long-ago disinherited because she entered into a forbidden marriage, and her father will not grant her an inheritance if he knows the marriage resulted in children, so she and her mother, "The "Grandmother", keep the children hidden in an attic as they await the old man's death, and she tries to win back his approval. The Grandmother is like a cruel warden, treating the children, a teenage boy and girl, and two young twins, boy and girl, like convicted criminals, only worse. The waiting goes on and on, during which the mother is consumed by greed, and emerges as the real villain.

Some readers of the book are indignant that the story was cleaned up for the movie, but that was necessary to make it more watchable to a wider audience. It is still a great and haunting story, reminiscent of the black and white horror flicks of the 1960's ("Whatever Happened To Baby Jane", "Hush Hush, Sweet Charlotte", etc.). Audiences of the 1980's were not so jaded as today's, and were not ready for incest, especially among sympathetic characters.

Maybe the acting was not first-rate, and some elements, like the climactic ending, a bit campy, but the compelling storyline easily compensates for it, so long as you don't dwell on the few shortcomings, and can't see the forest for the trees.

And the movie has one thing the book hasn't: a memorably haunting, chilling musical score, a perfect compliment to an equally haunting, chilling story.